Trump’s decision to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico, traditional U.S. allies and now World Cup partners, has raised eyebrows across the sporting community. As Euronews dryly noted, the very rifts that were “glossed over” in 2018 – trade barriers and talks of border walls – have re-emerged with a vengeance. This has led to increasing concerns about the feasibility of smoothly hosting a tournament across three countries if they’re locked in economic combat. Will logistical coordination suffer if officials on each side aren’t on speaking terms? Could there be retaliatory regulations that complicate the movement of goods needed for the tournament (everything from turf to broadcast equipment? These questions are now on the table.
One immediate worry is the tone and perception. Major international sports events thrive on goodwill and cooperation. If the political climate is hostile, will that deter participation or attendance? Trump, for his part, isn’t shy about the tension; during an Oval Office meeting with Infantino, he remarked that “Tension’s a good thing” in the context of the World Cup. Not everyone agrees. Diplomats and analysts fear that if trade fights escalate, they might “add fuel to the fire” for the tournament’s planning, potentially affecting “coordination, fan travel and more”.
Fan travel is a significant point. The World Cup will draw hundreds of thousands of international visitors. Normally, Canada, the U.S., and Mexico have friendly borders for travellers, especially under the USMCA trade agreement framework. But with tariffs flying, there’s been talk of cooler relations. “Will the world want to come?” one headline asks pointedly – and just as crucially, “will the world be able to?” if stricter visa and border policies are in play. Already, there was an incident of political spill over in sports: Canadian spectators booed the U.S. national anthem at a hockey game earlier this year, a sign of anti-American sentiment brewing among some neighbours. One hopes such displays won’t mar the World Cup, but it shows how public opinion is being shaped by current events.
Tournament organisers from all three countries insist that when it comes to the World Cup, it’s business as usual. Alan Rothenberg, a key figure in the 1994 World Cup in the U.S., remains optimistic. He contends that passionate soccer fans won’t be stopped by political squabbles – “A passionate soccer fan is not going to be held up by that,” he asserts. If history is a guide, he might be right: despite geopolitical tensions before Russia 2018 and Qatar 2022, over 3 million attendees still showed up at each, and the events went ahead successfully. Rothenberg even suggests the World Cup could serve as a chance for rapprochement, bringing people together in spite of leaders’ disputes.
Furthermore, FIFA appears confident. The federation’s leadership has a notably friendly relationship with Trump – Gianni Infantino even attended Trump’s inauguration, and FIFA has based more of its operations in the U.S. in recent years. This closeness might help ensure any bureaucratic hiccups are resolved behind the scenes. FIFA and U.S. officials will be keen to avoid any disruption, and Trump, who prides himself on deal-making, would not want to see a prized event on home soil tarnished. Infantino has repeatedly praised Trump’s support for the tournament, suggesting a working channel that could override lower-level tensions. In public, FIFA declined to comment on hypothetical tariff impacts, but internally they are likely coordinating with all three host nations to keep preparations on track.
That said, contingency plans exist. If, in a dramatic scenario, either Canada or Mexico felt slighted enough to scale back involvement, Rothenberg believes the U.S. could “pick up the slack and host more games” on its own. Few expect it to come to that – such a move would be unprecedented short of an actual diplomatic breach. And voices like economist Andrew Zimbalist assure that “Trump’s policies will probably have no lasting effect” on the tournament. He suggests that even if there are travel restrictions in general, they would likely be relaxed for the duration of the event (after all, it’s in everyone’s interest to let the teams and fans in smoothly). Similarly, U.S. Olympic officials, looking ahead to Los Angeles 2028, have expressed confidence that the Games will go on fine, indicating they’ve handled “difficult” personalities before and can manage communications with the Trump administration.
Nonetheless, some practical challenges are being watched. One is the potential for stricter border inspections around the tournament period. Victor Matheson, a sports economics professor, points out that “the main thing FIFA needs to move for this event is not car parts or electricity – it’s people.” Heightened border scrutiny could create bottlenecks, “especially with team logistics and fan movement between countries,” he notes. Imagine teams having to clear customs for equipment and staff every time they cross from Mexico into the U.S. for a match – any delays could wreak havoc on carefully scheduled training and rest. Fans planning to drive or take buses between venues in Mexico and the U.S. might face longer waits at checkpoints if trade tensions keep border agents on high alert. These are manageable issues with coordination, but they add friction compared to a totally harmonious political environment.
From an economic standpoint, tariffs could also influence World Cup-related commerce. Local businesses in Mexico or Canada that supply goods to U.S. venues might find their products taxed at the border, possibly pricing them out in favour of American suppliers (or vice versa). For instance, if a Mexican company was set to provide merchandise or food products to U.S. stadiums, tariffs might force the organizers to source from a U.S. company instead, affecting contracts and local economic benefits. Tourism flows are also a consideration: if some foreign fans (say from Europe or Asia) are deterred by the U.S.’s image or higher costs, Canada or Mexico might stand to gain relatively more of the tourism bump if those fans choose to attend games in the co-host countries instead of U.S. venues.
Despite all the what-ifs, many remain hopeful that sports can rise above the fray. Mexican official Gabriela Cuevas expresses optimism that the World Cup could actually “serve as a diplomatic bridge, despite the political friction.” The event “could be a route to engage in conversation,” she says, suggesting that cooperation on such a massive sporting project might even ease some tensions. After all, once the whistle blows and the matches start, political posturing might take a backseat to the celebration of goals and saves.
In the end, most experts agree with fan German Camacho Pacheco from Mexico, who shrugged off the tariff wars with a smile: “Football is religion in Mexico... Unless this turns into an actual war, it won’t affect the World Cup.” In other words, it would take something far more catastrophic than a trade dispute to extinguish the flame of the world’s game. Preparations continue, and as of now, the 2026 World Cup is still on course to be the grand united festival it was promised to be – albeit with a few extra diplomatic headaches to solve along the way.
